Which has then conspired to de-legitimize the celebration of its own independence.

I have close to zero respect for anti-fireworks laws. Go ahead and do it, but be responsible, or be held liable.

What the hell is wrong with that?

If you consider source of funding to be an automatic bias and cause for disqualification, then we can just fire all the climate scientists right now.

Sound good?

This is a guy who thinks your average (or, more precisely, well below-average) college professor is a "scientist". Someone who couldn't even do high-school-level statistics right without blatant bias.

They're welcome to try. I don't mind. But as EFF explains, it's much BETTER to run your own WiFi hotspot as a public service. I'm already paying for the bandwidth, so who cares?

It's part of the battle which will decide whether we will be a friendly, cooperative society or permanent slaves to corporations.

Make your own choice. I already have, and I don't really give a damn which way you go.

Public Service Announcement --------------- It is my policy to not respond to this person because he seems to have some kind of personal vendetta, plus a nasty habit of publicly lying about other people.

Please don't feed the troll.

(And let the dumbshits identify themselves.)

Now Naomi Oreskes is a "scientist"???

You might want to tell other people that, because nobody else seems to know.

This really is the problem.

The vast majority of private data leaks were due to HUMAN error... not vulnerability to hacks. That means that even if your site isn't hacked, some bozo working for the company you're supposed to TRUST is intentionally or accidentally giving out the information on your 12-year-old daughter.

People REALLY need to get it through their heads that the serious flaws aren't in the technology, they're in THE PEOPLE who implement it. A seriously hack-proof database is still going to get spilled, by idiotic corporate bureaucratic errors or even just employee theft.

You missed:

That means it's just an IDEA. Well, hell. I want an award for my idea of a thing just like a Star-Trek replicator, except it makes really cool sparkly FX when it operates.

This is really the whole thing.

ISP-imposed hotspots (all I've seen) require you to log in to the carrier before you can use them. So if you're a Comcast customer, you log in with your Comcast ID, and you're on the 'net. Whoopie.

The problem, of course, is that this is just a "foot in the door" to charging you for that usage.

That's why I, and EFF, say you should set up your own public WiFi hotspots, bypassing those imposed by your ISP.

I've had a NON-ISP open WiFi hotspot -- with pretty damned good range -- for about 5 years now, and only had one tiny problem with a neighborhood teenager abusing it. Nipped that right in the bud, and I didn't even have to ban her. (In fact I think she was pretty freaked out by getting the .mp3 file that called her by name and politely told her to knock it off. Ghost in the machine.)

It's not a "conspiracy bandwagon", it's a simple statement of truth. You've been listening to too much liberal propaganda, to think that anything you disagree with is "conspiracy".

If 6 people beat you up and take your wallet, is that "conspiracy", or just a crime?

Your audience.

Public Service Announcement
---------------

It is my policy to not respond to this person because he seems to have some kind of personal vendetta, plus a nasty habit of publicly lying about other people. How ironic that he would pop up in a discussion of libel.

Please don't feed the troll.

Because he has a habit of making false public accusations and other misrepresentations, and I want others to see how wrong he is.

That, and to save his rantings "for posterity". And maybe for other purposes, as I see fit.

One thing I want to make clear is that I am NOT baiting him. He's the master baiter. I am just responding to his own comments. I have no reason to bait or troll him... I'd far rather he just went away.

I understand. But this whole topic is about a libel suit.

That's why I was trying to illustrate the difference. You are legally allowed to make criticism and commentary all you like anonymously. No problem there. As long as you're being honest. But doing so, anonymously or not, when you know or reasonably should know that it is not true is libel. In general.

I definitely agree that the ability to make commentary anonymously is, and should be protected. I do not agree that intentionally dishonest commentary should be protected, whether it is anonymous or not.

I have explained to you clearly at least several times that you MISUNDERSTOOD my meaning, and exactly where and how you misunderstood.

Therefore, I can only conclude that to continue presenting this to the public in the distorted way you have, and pretend that it was my actual meaning, is deliberate misrepresentation. Further, the circumstances surrounding it suggest that your purpose was malicious.

There is nothing more to be said.